Looking for Leissure
Adeste Musae, maximi proles Jovis!
Functions and Sources of Emperor
Maximilian II’s Lustschloß Neugebäude
Looking for Leissure
Function Follows Form?
The Neugebäude complex was constructed ex novo, and therefore offers, as it was put in the call for papers,
‘a much clearer view of the incentives, intentions and concepts of the patron, than that offered by rebuilt or even merely refurbished older residential structures’. This is important, because the documentary evidence concerning the complex, first brought together by Hilda Lietzmann, is minimal, especially considering the size of the project; it is probably the largest architectural commission of the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs in the sixteenth century. Thus there are hardly any explicit sources about the exact intended function or functions of the complex, and what there is almost exclusively refers to the gardens. These included kitchen gardens, fruit trees, a game preserve, especially a Fasanerie, an aviary, a deer-park, and a small zoo of half-tame and wild animals. There are few references to the buildings at the centre of these gardens, and these mentions hardly ever refer explicitly to their functions. This can be partly explained by the fact that the complex was very far from complete when Maximilian died in 1576. Although Rudolf II continued work on the building, it was never finished as planned and probably was never fully used as it was originally intended.
This lack of documentation means that the fabric of the building itself is the best and most informative document as to its raison-d’être. Thus there are a number of elements the function of which is not very difficult to guess. The most obvious one is the stable, which is located in the lateral or service court and probably served as a secondary stable for day-to-day use and to accommodate the needs of hunting parties taking their departure from the Neugebäude. The hypothetical Ballhaus or tennis court was likewise located in the lateral court and would have offered suitable space for tennis and other types of physical exercise. Unfortunately doubts have arisen about the dating of both these elements, which should be resolved before any conclusions can be drawn from them.6
In the later print by Matthäus Merian (dated 1649), [Fig. 2] which is nonetheless our earliest visual source on the complex as a whole, the promenades around the upper garden are described as ‘Spatziergäng oben auff den Schwijbögen’, that is ‘promenades on top of the arcades’.7 [Fig. 6] These walkways provided opportunity for less strenuous exercise than hunting or tennis. Merian indicates that they were accessible through the four towers at the corners of the upper flower garden, which indicates at least one of the functions of these unusual hexagonal pavilions. In the case of the fishponds, [Fig. 3] their function is corroborated by the model from which their design is derived, the fishponds of Raphael’s Villa Madama in Rome, which belonged to Maximilian’s aunt, Margaret, Duchess of Parma. [Figs. 4 and 5] Other models for various elements of the Neugebäude may also indicate their intended functions. I will give a few examples.
The source of the unusually high arch which opened on the south side of the central portion of the main building is not quite clear. Various models have been proposed. I would like to suggest that it is related to an element of the Villa d’Este at Tivoli. Maximilian’s interest in this suburban retreat induced its patron, Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, to commission Etienne du Pérac to design the famous bird’s-eye view of the estate, which was duly dedicated to the Emperor. The element which inspired Maximilian was the Gran Loggia, [Fig. 8] which is one of the earliest examples of the use of the triumphal arch motif in a permanent structure in the modern period.
I concur with the recently completed reconstruction model of the Neugebäude [Fig. 7] that the central portion of its southern facade was based on a triumphal arch motif. The Gran Loggia in Tivoli functioned as a belvedere and as a space for dining al fresco, that is as a banqueting hall, which is an indication of the function of this corresponding section of the Neugebäude.
If the fishponds of the Villa Madama inspired a similar installation at the Neugebäude, it is likely that the villa served as a source of inspiration in other ways. I find the similarity in layout of the entrance court of the Villa Madama and of the Neugebäude striking. The stables at the Villa Madama open directly onto the oblong forecourt, which could double as a tiltyard. [Fig. 5] This was overlooked by a monumental loggia which could accommodate the most high-ranking spectators.8 All this parallels the layout of the forecourt at the Neugebäude, where the central loggia overlooking the oblong entrance court could serve as a ‘royal box’ during tilts, jousts and other spectacles. [Figs. 5, 6 and 7]
6 I am grateful to Dr Andreas Kusternig for his comment on my paper at the symposium, and for informing me that the dates of these elements and even their hypothetical functions are matter of debate. Both may be dated, at least in their present form, after Maximilian II’s death. Unfortunately the full findings of the material examination of the complex have not yet been made public.
7 Matthäus Merian, Eijgentliche Delineatio des Schönen Lusthauses genannt das Neugebäu, bird’s-eye view of the Neugebäude from the north, engraving, 1649.
8 Philip Foster, Raphael on the Villa Madama: the text of a lost letter, Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 11, 1967–1968, pp. 307–312.
Looking for Leissure
This theory supports Wolfgang Lippmann’s hypothesis that the ‘Schöne Saale’ on the ground floor of the Neugebäude [Fig. 9] should be identified with the ‘amplum stabulum sub terra’ (‘ample subterranean stables’), described by the young Czech noble Ladislav Velen ze Žerotína after his visit in the summer of 1590.9 As at any princely court of the period, horses were of great importance to the Imperial Court. This is documented, for instance, in the ironic opening passage of Sir Philip Sidney’s A Defence of Poetry, in which he recalls his riding master in Vienna Giovan Pietro Pugliano, a groom in Maximilian’s stable, expounding on the virtues of horsemen and of horses, ‘ … telling what a peerless beast the horse was, the only serviceable courtier without flattery, the beast of most beauty, faithfulness, courage, and such more, that if I had not been a piece of a logician before I came to him, I think he would have persuaded me to have wished myself a horse’.10
The importance of splendid horses at Maximilian’s court is demonstrated in a miniature in the Albertina, depicting a favourite horse of the Czech nobleman Jan Šembera Černohorsky z Boskovic, also known as the patron of Bučovice Castle in Moravia.11 [Fig. 10] Such high regard for horses was by no means exceptional; at many Renaissance courts it resulted in the construction of splendid stables, often in connection with other representative spaces. Examples include: Charles V’s Alcázar at Toledo; the Cortile della Mostra in the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua;
the stables next to the Kunstkammer of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol at Schloß Ambras; the stable below Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria’s Kunstkammer in Munich; the tiltyard next to the Kunstkammer in Dresden; Rudolf II’s monumental stables under the Spanische Saal in Prague Castle; and Maximilian II’s own Stallburg in Vienna.12
The various elements of the Neugebäude listed above confirm that recreation was one of the principal functions of the new complex. If the interpretation of the forecourt as a tiltyard is correct, that would imply that it also was intended to fill a representative function at least occasionally. Additionally, traces have been found of what appears to have been a Taflstube or banqueting chamber and annexes, which means that it was actually used for smaller entertainments even before the principal building provided larger-scale accommodation.13 All this suggests that, whatever its size, the purpose of the Neugebäude did not differ greatly from similar projects undertaken by other princes. Nevertheless I think it is possible to define its patron’s intentions with greater precision and, to quote the call for papers again, ‘to better understand his incentives, intentions and concepts’. This is important, because there can be little doubt that the patron was indeed personally involved in the genesis of this, his greatest artistic project.14 The arguments supporting this level of personal involvement on the part of the emperor are beyond the scope of this paper, and I will therefore limit myself to examining some of the paths of enquiry which could be explored. This paper will examine the various elements of the building and their possible models and then evaluate information about Maximilian’s preoccupations, interests and tastes, and their context.
Classical Models
Apart from the choice of location, which was on the exact site of Suleiman the Magnificent’s encampment during his unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1529, there are no contemporary sources that support the legend that the form of the Neugebäude owes something to Ottoman sources. Some authors discard this possibility too quickly; interest in Ottoman castrametatio and military techniques and in Ottoman culture generally, including
9 Lippmann (see note 2), p. 153 and p. 166, n. 115–118; Žerotín’s description cited in Lietzmann (see note 2), p. 44 and n. 12.
10 Philip Sidney, A Defence of Poetry, ed. J. A. van Dorsten, Oxford 1966 [1975] 2, p. 17. ''John Pietro Pugliano' (or Poliano; but Sidney’s spelling is probably correct) has really existed: Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II. Eine Edition der Hofstaatsverzeichnissen 1576–1612 (Fontes Historiae Artium 9], Prague 2002, pp. 427–428, nr. 193/1.
11 The brand impressed on the horse’s flank, a monogram reading ISS (Iani Semberae Stabulae?) with a comb, Boskovic’s armorial bearings, sufficiently identify the owner of the horse; the castle on the hill in the distance may well represent his ancestral seat, Boskovic castle.
12 Lippmann (see note 2), p. 153; on Munich, see: Michael Petzet, Die Alte Münze in München. Marstall- und Kunstkammergebäude - Hauptmünzamt - Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Munich 1996. On Prague, see: Ivan Muchka, Die Architektur unter Rudolf II., gezeigt am Beispiel der Prager Burg, in: Prag um 1600: Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II., exh. cat., Freren 1988, 1, pp. 85–92, esp. pp. 90–91. – Monika Brunner, Papstliches
„Capriccio“ und kaiserliche „Representatio”. Das Ovaltreppenhaus der rudolfinischen Kunstkammern als Form habsburgischer Architekturpolitik, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 60, 1997, pp. 514–529, esp. pp. 517, 526 and ill. 3. A case could be made that the Stallburg was planned from the beginning to house Maximilian II’s horses; certainly they were transferred there before the building was finished.
13 Mario Griemann, Schloss Neugebäude: Neue Funde im Kontext der Bau- und Forschungsgeschichte (Diplomarbeit Universität Wien), Vienna 2008 [http://othes.univie.ac.at/1638/1/2008-10-09_9902904.pdf], pp. 33 ff.
14 This is indicated in a report from the Venetian ambassador Giovanni Michiel of 1571: ‘at present [Maximilian II] has another [occupation] which is greatly to his taste, and in which he spends all the time he can spare from business; this is the building of a garden, half a league from Vienna; which will be, once it is finished, of truly regal and imperial aspect’ (author’s translation); Josef Fiedler, Relationen venetianischer Botschafter über Deutschland und Österreich im 16. Jahrhundert, Vienna 1870, p. 280, as cited in Lietzmann (see note 2), pp. 34–35.
Looking for Leissure
architecture, certainly existed at the Vienna court. But formal correspondences with Ottoman architecture are so generic that no conclusions can be based upon them. Here I will consider one other model which may have influenced Maximilian II when planning the Neugebäude.
It seems plausible that, like his peers, the kings of France and Spain, Maximilian would have been primarily influenced by classical Roman and contemporary Italian architecture, which itself was strongly influenced by antiquarian study, including the study of relevant texts, notably that of Vitruvius, as well as study of Rome’s ancient monuments. Expertise on both the written and material sources was found in the presence at Maximilian’s court of Jacopo Strada, who functioned as court antiquary and architect. Strada provided the only documented design for the complex.15 Many ancient models have been suggested, which all to a greater or lesser degree may have influenced Maximilian’s plans. Of these, the most important are the printed reconstructions of ancient Roman monuments and palaces.
The most relevant of these are the reconstructions of the gardens of Imperial Rome depicted in Pirro Ligorio’s reconstruction of the plan of the ancient city, the Antiquae urbis imago published in 1561, here illustrated by the copies included in Jacques Androuet du Cerceau’s Livres des édifices antiques Romains of 1583.16 The depiction of the gardens of Caracalla shows a general layout to which that of the Neugebäude largely corresponds, an ample square garden surrounded by colonnades, possibly carrying walkways, interrupted by round or square pavilions and complemented on one side by a large, oblong building consisting of three pavilions connected by an arcaded promenade. [Fig. 11] The illustration of the gardens of Caesar shows a variant of this plan, here with an enclosed inner garden within a larger precinct. [Fig. 12] The promenade in this example is particularly relevant because it is flanked by two hexagonal pavilions or towers, corresponding to the hexagonal towers (rather than octagonal, which would have been more usual) at the corners of the inner garden at the Neugebäude.
The principal building of the Neugebäude gardens, the arcade, was an unusual concept for the period. Such long arcades or colonnades generally only existed as part of a larger complex and functioned as connecting galleries, but they did not stand alone as an independent, detached structure. But even here Ligorio’s reconstructions may have provided the inspiration, or at least the pretext. A colonnade over a closed podium level connecting two corner pavilions is shown in his reconstruction of the house of Petronius. A more telling example, is a similar colonnade, this time an independent structure, which was supported by paired columns, another distinctive feature of the Neugebäude.17 [Fig. 13] It is depicted as part of a complex which, according to Ligorio, served as a vivarium, an animal preserve or zoological garden, which is known to be one of the features of the Neugebäude.
In 1558 one of Rome’s largest ancient monuments had been documented in great detail in a suite of twenty-seven prints by Johannes and Lucas van Doetecum, which were based on measured drawings by the Dutch architect Sebastian van Noyen; this monument was the Baths of Diocletian.18 [Figs. 14–15] The surrounding wall interrupted by square and semi-circular exedras may have contributed to the concept of the Neugebäude’s upper garden. More important was the construction technique of the thermae, the Massivbauweise in heavy brick masonry, which was used for the central and the end pavilions of the Neugebäude’s principal building. [Fig. 16]
Further, the large hall on the piano nobile of the west pavilion of the Neugebäude [Fig. 17] could be derived from Van Noyen’s image of the central rotunda of the thermae; [Fig. 18] although its circular plan became an irregular octagon in Maximilian’s Neugebäude, the sense of space is very similar, and there are a number of corresponding details, notably the arched window echoing the arch of the exedra, the niches in the corners, and the sober cornice distinguishing the wall from the vault.
15 This design is referred to in a letter to Strada from Hans Jakob Fugger, 13 november 1568, see Lietzmann (see note 2), pp. 117–118.
16 Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, Livre des édifices antiques romains contenant les ordonnances et desseings des plus signalez et principaux bastiments qui se trouvoient à Rome du temps qu’elle estoit en sa plus grande fleur: partie desquels bastiments se void encor à présent, s.l. 1584, unnumbered pls.
“Horti Bassiani Antonini Aug.”; “Horti Caesaris”.
17 Du Cerceau (see note 16), unn. pl. Domus Petroni; ed. Robert W. Gaston, Pirro Ligorio: Artist and Antiquarian (= Tatti Studies 10), Rome 1988, p. 85, ill. 77.
18 Thermae Diocletiani imperatoris, quales hodie etiamnum extant sumptibus et ardenti erga venerandam antiquitatum studio Antoni Perenoti, episcopi Atrebatensis, in lucem eductae, industria et incomparabili labore Sebastiani ab Oya, Caroli V architecti, tanti herois impulsu quam exactitudine ad vivum a fundo usque descriptae, ab uberiori prorsus interitu vindicatae et ab Hieronimo Coccio Antwerpiano in aes incisae; a suite of 27 prints, engraved by Johannes and Lucas van Doetecum after designs by Sebastian van Noyen, published by Hieronymous Cock in Antwerp, 1558, at the expense of Cardinal Granvelle; integrally published in Henk Nalis, The New Hollstein Dutch and Flemish Etchings. Engravings and Woodcuts 1450–1700: The Van Doetecum Family, Pt. 2: The Antwerp Years, 1554–1575, Rotterdam 1998, pp. 44–63. The Duke of Bavaria possessed a set pasted on canvas: see Dorothea Diemer – Peter Diemer – Willibald Sauerländer (eds.), Die Münchner Kunstkammer 1–2: Katalog; 3: Aufsätze und Anhänge (= Abh. der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. 129), Munich 2008, 1, 1, pp. 52–53, nr. 136.
Looking for Leissure
What is striking is that in this case, as in all the possible sources for the Neugebäude, no model is copied exactly; at most they were used as a source of inspiration. This indicates that the designer had sufficient expertise and confidence to be able to handle his sources with assurance and adapt them to this particular situation. If the designer was Jacopo Strada, that need not be surprising. But it might indicate instead or additionally, that the project was not developed merely by shopping among the prints and drawings in the Emperor’s personal library or in Strada’s ‘paper museum’, but that it was the result of the consultation of specific written sources, translated first into images, and then into real buildings. The choice of texts would be dictated by the purpose or purposes the patron intended his project to serve. Even with the images I have just shown, it is no coincidence, I think, that they relate specifically to the garden complexes of ancient Rome, to the vivarium, and to Roman baths, that is to monuments which themselves were devoted to purposes held in common with the Neugebäude. These include gardening, the maintenance of animal preserves, recreation, leisure, exercise, intellectual exchange, and the care of health. This last purpose was important for Maximilian II, who suffered from various ailments and general poor health since his return from Spain in 1552, and it is perfectly plausible that the name of Badeturm, which is documented for one of the four towers of the inner garden, refers to its actual or intended use as such.19
Literary Sources
That close examination of literary sources was an important aspect of the planning stages of the Neugebäude is suggested by the documentation prepared for Maximilian concerning an earlier garden complex he had built: the Grünes Lusthaus in the Prater. This description by Georg Tanner makes clear that in the mind of Maximilian, or at least in those of his advisers, precedents from ancient history were of great importance in the planting of this garden.20 Tanner’s list of literary references include the legendary gardens of Alcinous and the Hesperides, the garden laid out by Cyrus King of Persia, and the gardens of Roman patricians such as Sallustius, Lucullus and Maecenas. It even includes a pointed reference to the Emperor Diocletian’s abdication and retirement in his
‘Dalmatian garden’ and to the splendid cabbages he grew there, the reason he gave for refusing to come back to Rome when his successors could not manage without him. This anecdote refers to the practical, horticultural function the Prater fulfilled, as do the many mentions of agricultural passages from ancient authors such as Cato the Elder, Varro, Columella and Pliny the Elder, and the list of fruits, vegetables and trees suitable for the garden according to such authors. This concern is echoed in Tanner’s description of the 619 fruit trees, including not only apples and pears but also various exotic fruits.
But the reference to Diocletian’s retirement also refers to the idyllic, pastoral attraction of life in a country garden, as does an oft-quoted passage from Horace’s second epode, Beatus ille, which predictably is included as well:
Happy the man, whose wish and care A few paternal acres bound, Content to breathe his native air,
In his own ground.21
Tanner applies this description of the joys of a quiet country life for recreation and the recovery of health explicitly to Emperor Ferdinand I, who regularly spent time at his son’s retreat:
Because this place, dedicated to the hunt and the royal pleasure, likewise is most suitable for all convenient sorts of honest physical exercise that maintain good health, His Majesty the King of the Romans often uses to come here to refresh his soul, fatigued by his heavy cares, and to recreate himself without undesired disturbance.22
19 In an inventory from 1637 listing the contents of the then ruined Neugebäude names the four towers Kronturm, Musikantenturm, Ratturm and Badturm (Lietzmann, see note 2, pp. 93–94). Because the Neugebäude was hardly used, if at all, by Maximilian’s successors, it is likely that these names still refer to their original functions. Maximilian’s use of baths as a means to improve his precarious health is well documented; on one occasion he spent about sixty hours of a visit to Ebersdorf taking baths (Paula Sutter Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, New Haven – London 2001, p. 207).
20 Tanner, Brevis et dilucida [...] diaetae descriptio, as given in Chmel (see note 3), pp. 276–292.
21 This translation is a free adaption found in the Ode on Solitude by the young Alexander Pope.
22 Tanner, Brevis et dilucida [...] diaetae descriptio, as cited in Chmel (see note 3), II, p. 283: ‘Quare cum hic locus Venationi tanquam Regiae voluptati, adeoque omnibus honestissimorum exercitiorum bonae valetudini tuendae convenientissimorum generibus sit aptissimus, Romana Regia Maiestas
Looking for Leissure
This is almost exactly the sentiment expressed by Maximilian himself when, a decade later, he wrote to his envoy in Rome Count Prospero d’Arco just as he was beginning construction of the Neugebäude:
Because in the most grave and manifold cares and labours, which we sustain to maintain the well being and safety not only of our own reigns and dominions, but of the entire Christian world, we are used to look for recreation and for the relaxation of our soul in the culture of gardens.23
That such repose was found not only in hunting and exercise, but also in the amenities of pastoral nature, the pretty flowers, the sweet chirping of the birds, the buzzing of the bees, was implied by Tanner’s quotation from a pseudo-Virgilian ode which, with some justification, was quite popular at the time. The English translation is contemporary:24
Flores nitescunt discolore gramine, Behold, with lively hue, fair flowers that shine so bright:
Pinguntque terras gemmeis honoribus With riches, like the orient gems, they paint the mould in sight.
[…] […]
Aves canoros garrulae fundunt sonos, Birds chatter, and some chirp, and some sweet tunes do yield:
Et semper aures cantibus mulcent suis. All mirthfull, with their songs so blithe, they make both air and field.
Is it possible that Maximilian himself had read the original poem? That he had is implied by Tanner, when he explains that the Prater garden included a ‘iucundissimus Labyrinthus’ consisting of hedges of fragrant plants such as myrtle and laurel, in the midst of which could be found ‘tria amoenissima cubicula’, that is three most pleasant chambers constructed of evergreen hedges and vines to keep out the sun, and which were therefore
‘perfectly adapted for the King’s recreation and profound reflections, in short for devotion to the Muses and every honest and civilized study’. This passage recalls the invocation of the Muses in the opening lines of the same ode, which Tanner does not quote:
ADESTE MUSAE, maximi proles Jovis! The issue of great Jove, draw near you Muses nine:
Laudes feracis praedicemus hortuli. Help us to praise the blissful plot of garden ground so fine.
This passage suggests that Maximilian used his gardens as retreats, where he could escape the many cares and responsibilities of his position. We know from Venetian ambassadors’ reports that he did occasionally disappear for a few days at a time. This quotation and the many other literary sources Tanner cited also suggest that Maximilian devoted part of his retreat to serious study and to the cultivation of the Muses. Maximilian was particularly interested in natural history, and he provided substantial support for Carolus Clusius’s botanic studies; but the sources cited by Tanner, in particular De laudibus hortuli, suggest that Maximilian also may have been sensitive to the pastoral and Arcadian aspects of his country retreats.
If the Emperor used his country residences to escape from heavy cares, instead of reading a scientific botanical treatise he may actually have preferred to read pastoral literature, such as Virgil’s Eclogues and its later imitations, including Sannazaro’s Arcadia, or certain passages from the Amadis de Gaulle, a chivalric romance that was a sixteenth-century bestseller. The French translation of Amadis de Gaulle, written by Nicolas de Herberay des Essarts at the request of the French King Francis I, included an additional chapter containing a description and ground plan of a fairy-tale castle and garden, the Palais d’Apolidon, which bears a close resemblance to
animum gravissimis curia defessum ibi plerunque reficere, et sine interpellatoribus oblectare solet.’
23 Author’s translation of a passage in a letter from Maximilian II to Prospero d’Arco, his ambassador in Rome, Linz, 4 December 1568, in: Voltellini (see note 4), Regest 8805; also printed in Lippmann (see note 2), p. 162 and cited in Lietzmann (see note 2), p. 29 and pp. 164–165.
24 Tanner thought this work was by Virgil (as given in Chmel, see note 3, p. 282), however today the poem is attributed to Asmenius (ca 400 AD) or Ausonius (ca 310–ca 394 AD). The full poem, Adeste Musae, maximi proles Jovis, is given in: H. W. Garrod, The Oxford book of Latin verse; from the earliest fragments to the end of the 5th century A.D., Oxford 1912, pp. 404–405. It was later set to music by Rudolf II’s court composer Jacobus Gallus (or Handl). The contemporary translation is by Nicholas Grimald (1519–1562), quoted from The Oxford Anthology of English Literature, I: The Middle Ages through the Eighteenth Century, Oxford 1973, p. 610 (which does not identify its precise Latin source).